Dr. Spencer's site is very interesting but I think he ascribes more to the point of view the humans are not dramatically affecting climate at all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
- Stay Connected
Follow Us
Teachers’ journal wants questions about climate change suppressed
Don't ask, don't tell
September 27, 2012
‘There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in “cargo cult science.” It’s a kind of scientific integrity . . . you should report everything (in an experiment) that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it.’ – Physicist Richard Feynman
WINNIPEG, MB, Sep 27, 2012/ Troy Media/ – The Alberta Science Education Journal is telling Alberta science teachers that educators and the media should never question theories of Catastrophic Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming (CAGW). The Journal is a scholarly publication of the professional development council of ‘science teachers for science teachers.’
In its December 2011 on-line edition, in an article entitled ‘The Role of Educators in Increasing Public Certainty in Climate Change Science,’ the Journal states that, even though climate change is about science, questioning should be suppressed and the public should be manipulated to believe that global warming is a certainty. Really?
Stan Bissell, the author, even recommends, as part of his in-class climate studies, that other teachers show their classes the PG-13 climate-terror movie The Day After Tomorrow as an exercise in ‘critical thinking.’
Critical thinking, the essence of scientific discovery and rational living, involves the development of reasoning skills so that individuals can assess the validity of any hypothesis dispassionately. Critical thinking is as essential in the pure sciences like math, as it is in interpretive studies such as history, ethics, philosophy, and economics.
Using The Day After Tomorrow to teach critical thinking on climate science is a bit like showing Friday the 13th to med students to critique surgical techniques.
The Day After Tomorrow exploits the inherent fear of separation and abandonment that children experience. In the movie, a father desperately tries to reach his son as cataclysmic cold weather sweeps across the U.S. It is a film fraught with tragedy and larger-than-life special effects. And it is fiction, not science.
Much of climate change ‘science’ exploits fear and encourages nonsensical thinking in place of the Scientific Method. Take a look at the UN’s Environment Program like ‘Tore and the Town on Thin Ice.’ Tore runs a team of sled dogs. To save him from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the UN earth mother Sedena encourages his arctic villagers to install solar panels on their homes, in a land where it is dark and sunless for much of the year.
That’s why critical thinking is essential to balance emotional climate change hysteria.
An approach based on emotion has consequences. Psychologists have noted a connection between ‘. . . numerous accounts of subclinical depressive emotions, guilt, and despair associated with climate change and other global environmental issues.’ As noted on the British site ‘Climate Lessons,’ in dozens of cases, terrorizing children about climate change leads to life-long anxiety and depression.
And is there even scientific certainty in ‘climate change science’?
Getting back to Bissell, the author of that Journal article, much of his argument is predicated on a paper published in 2000 (which heavily relies on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) entitled ‘Communicating the Science of Climate Change.’ Since that time, however, more than a decade of satellite evidence has shown global temperatures to be cooling, despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2).
More recently, investigative journalist Donna Laframboise exposed the IPCC as untrustworthy, writing that its ‘Climate Bible’ had been compiled by ‘green’ activists who radically tampered with scientific submissions in order to suit pre-set IPCC global warming policy.
Alberta science teachers who follow Bissell’s advice are teaching children to ignore the Scientific Method and current scientific evidence.
Bissell denigrates public debate saying that ‘it is irresponsible of mass media to give equal weight to conflicting viewpoints when the evidence so clearly supports one viewpoint, and the result of this practice is a confused public.
Alberta’s Premier Alison Redford, who rode to power through an alliance with the Alberta Teachers Association, claims she wants to ‘foster a rich innovation and research culture’. Unfortunately, that can never happen as long as leaders and educators are closing questioning minds, dismissing the scientific method, and advocating groupthink.
Michelle Stirling-Anosh is a research associate at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (www.fcpp.org).
This column is FREE to use on your websites or in your publications. However, Troy Media, with a link to its web site, MUST be credited.
Editor's suggestions
September 12, 2012
By Tim Ball
and Tom Harris
Advisors
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
WINNIPEG, MB and OTTAWA, ON, Sep 12, 2012/ Troy Media/ - The most meaningless phrase in today's global warming debate ...
READ MORE
September 11, 2012
EDMONTON, AB, Sep 11, 2012/ Troy Media/ - The Rt Hon Peter Lilley, MP in the British Parliament and a former cabinet Minister under both Baroness Thatcher and ...
READ MORE| ADVERTISEMENT |
27 comments
In the article you say "Since that time, however, more than a decade of satellite evidence has shown global temperatures to be cooling, despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2)."
I was wondering where you found this data? CO2 has gone up but i've never seen anything showing global temperatures to be cooling. Certain regions have cooled but on the whole I've never seen evidence of global temperatures decreasing....A quick search shows the opposite of what you stated. All but one year since 2000 has been warmer.
Well unless you used the El Nino peak in 2000 and didn't use a true climatological baseline (climate is generally 30 years or more of data not one year)
@chrisdubya Thirty years seems quite small compared to the long-term climate history we can trace through geologic evidence and proxies. In "The Great Warming" by Brian Fagan he records 'mega-epoch droughts' in history.
@MichelleStirling I'm not going into the other points. My question was about the cooling... The article you sited in a separate comment at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html shows 16 years with no change (0.5 to 0.5) if you went back 17 it would be warming or do 14 it's still warming. It depends what year you pick. And since in your article you reference relative to the IPCC report in 2000 on your chart it shows about 0.25 in 2000 and currently it's 0.5...I see that as a rise....
I just wanted to see a reference for your statement in the article. I personally do not see a strong arguement for cooling....
@chrisdubya Hi chrisdubya - sorry for the timeout there. I would say if we've measured temps for 100 years, then 16 years of cooling is significant - almost 20%. Other climate experts like Arno Arrak (What Warming?) states that satellite temps show no warming. The IPCC reports (aside from their undue influence by internal dedicated Greenpeace and WWF activists) do not consider the impact of natural forces on climate. My point in the article is that the scope of climate science is being suppressed as is critical thinking. Also kids are being scared into thinking the end is nigh, instead of being inspired to appreciate human potential to address problems (i.e. London England was so sooty in the 1700's people died of breathing; in North America our air was more polluted in the 70's than today). This is also a revealing link ( esp. about the physicist at the end). http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.ca/2012/10/dr-tim-ball-obamas-democratic.html Remember that Obama is trying to sell the idea of carbon taxes as a way to bail out the US from debt - so his admin and supporters must maintain the myth of global warming from fossil fuels or there's no reason for a tax and they will have to face the music...
@MichelleStirling Sure, i was saying 30 or more though.
For my point, it looks pretty steady or even slightly higher to me, but making an argument over that small of a time period with a fluctuating dataset is pretty tough. I think an argument of cooling is a very weak one and likely not worth mentioning.
No, please don't misunderstand. You put it clearly in your article. Let me add that, as a Fellow Feynman Fan, I appreciate the quote you provided. Here is another that I think also fits the question at hand:
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain." -- Richard Feynman
Science has betrayed us once again after poisoning the planet with their pesticides and cancer causing chemicals as they still refuse to say any crisis “WILL” happen, only “might” and “could” and…
NOT ONE single IPCC warning is without “maybes” despite “being at the tipping point, maybe” and threatening the voter’s children with deaths by CO2 is as good as voting for Romneycon. Climate change was Liberalism’s Iraq War of Climate WMD lies and fear mongering.
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.
*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.
*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE, lazy copy and paste journalism and Liberal progressivism had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS”(ruled by trustworthy politicians) to trump the UN's and entire world's efforts into 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.
nnoxks
Thank you for your comment. It is difficult to summarize a 5 page article in about 600 words, consequently the first comment you refer to is without quotes because it is summarizing the general thrust of the article.
A pertinent and revealing quote from the article that supports my statement is: "However, it is irresponsible of mass media to give equal weight to conflicting viewpoints when the evidence so clearly supports one viewpoint, and the result of this practice is a confused public."
Throughout the article Mr. Bissell frequently refers to the "General agreement by climate scientists on the realities and causes of climate change has not been enough to sway public opinion and promote consensus..."
What general agreement is that? Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming appears to be the consistent reference in terms of his references to reasons why not to use fear and guilt (Moser & Dilling 2004,37) saying 'In other words, climate change means a potentially dark and catastrophic future, so they don't want to think about it.'
Science is about evidence, not consensus. It is not about "educators increasing public certainty in climate change science"; it is about educators teaching children the Scientific Method and to critically evaluate all theories.
Mr Bissell later mocks those called 'contrarians' and 'deniers'.
In the first column of the article Mr. Bissell states that "It is important to include students as part of the public when focusing on climate change education.." so that they be informed and also..."..to inform and influence the decisions of adult members of the public."
Regarding your comment about the film, while it is true that Mr. Bissell mentions that this is a pseudo-science film, I doubt that a young person in a classroom, with a role dominant individual in charge of my marks - one who is clearly on the side of 'consensus' thinking about climate change - I doubt I would come away from watching "The Day After Tomorrow" enlightened or able to sort out any scientific 'inaccuracies'; I would simply feel terrified of the future because this is what the film is about.
It is, in my view, absurd and even abusive to use a pseudo-science, psychological terror movie on children as a tool for teaching about critical thinking in science.
Since the topic is science, why not use SCIENCE? Why not, instead of mocking those who 'deny' - why not present both sides of the story and review them scientifically?
Why not call upon current scientific information - not that from more than 2 decades ago when an El Nino spike in the late 98's had the world convinced the catastrophic global warming theory was correct - now scientific evidence reveals (the most recent at CERN) that the sun is the major factor in climate change.
Why not review historical evidence - my easy, readable preferences are Brian Fagan's two books "The Little Ice Age" and "The Great Warming". You don't have to be a scientist to read these and appreciate climate fluctuations.
I hope this will clarify the sources and content you question. I don't believe I have lied or mislead readers.
1 Like
Climate change was a war crime that condemned billions of helpless children to the greenhouse gas ovens of climate change crisis for 26 years of needless panic. Why didn't you just get to the point?
And science has never said it "WILL' happen, just "could" happen.
@DavidNutzuki Writers write. Getting to the point works best in board rooms with ubiquitous bullets on power points. I tried to demonstrate what I believe are improper methods (i.e. using a climate science fiction movie as a 'teaching tool' when the basis of critical thinking is already skewed in the CAGW direction) and illustrate that this approach is also damaging to children as well as being scientifically ridiculous - esp. the UN's story about Tore...good heavens!
1 Like
@MichelleStirling The length of your respective pieces does not justify misinformation. I think it is perfectly evident from the quotes I gave below that you did mislead. You seem to have now backed off from some of your most misleading statements, but your answer to my comment is less than satisfactory.
The best quote you can come up with to support your claim that Mr. Bissell's article asserts "questioning should be suppressed and the public should be manipulated to believe that global warming is a certainty" is the claim that "it is irresponsible of mass media to give equal weight to conflicting viewpoints when the evidence so clearly supports one viewpoint"? No, these are not remotely similar assertions. It IS irresponsible of the media to give equal weight to conflicting viewpoints when one viewpoint is supported by evidence and the other is not. That is not a cry for suppression and manipulation, it is a plea for honesty.
Next, you refer to the article's statement that there is a "General agreement by climate scientists on the realities and causes of climate change." You ask: "What general agreement is that?" I would ask you: What do you mean by this question? Do you think there is not general agreement among climate scientists on the realities and causes of climate change? If that is what you think, you are incorrect. Even those climate scientists who question the severity of the warming, such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roger Pielke Sr., agree that warming is a necessary consequence of human releases of carbon dioxide. There is general agreement on climate change to the same extent there is general agreement about evolution, increased cancer risk from smoking, or the germ theory of disease.
Perhaps because you do realize there is a general agreement, you next claim that "[s]cience is about evidence, not consensus." You cannot separate these two things. Science builds a consensus through evidence. The evidence is what convinces the scientists. If a claim has less evidence, less scientists will be convinced of the claim. If a claim has more evidence, more scientists, over time, will be convinced by it. There is a consensus that life evolved from earlier, simpler forms. The consensus exists because that is what the evidence supports. There is a consensus that smoking leads to increased risk of cancer. The consensus exists because the evidence supports the claim. You get the point.
When you later ask "why not present both sides of the story and review them scientifically?" you reveal yourself quite clearly. Your argument is identical to the argument used by religious activists who want to cast doubt on evolution. The problem with the argument is that it assumes as a premise that there are two equally valid perspectives and each needs to be scientifically evaluated on its own merits. This is absurd. The scientists have already gone through that process, examining a lot more than "two sides." There is a consensus because the question has been answered. You wouldn't ask to give equal time to creation and evolution. You wouldn't say we should scientifically examine "both sides" of whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. Why? Because there is a consensus. Why is there a consensus? Because of the evidence. So, no, you cannot say science is about the evidence not consensus. Science depends on both.
By the way, here's one more example of misleading your readers. You state that Mr. Bissell "mocks" contrarians and deniers. Here's what he said:
"Persons who disagree with the opinions of the majority of climate change scientists, called contrarians, easily make use of the multipurpose genres on the Internet to present misinformation and their extreme views. These contrarians range from complete skeptics who deny that climate change is occurring to doomsayers who use climate change to present a catastrophic or apocalyptic future."
First, this doesn't seem very mocking. Second, he clearly includes those who exaggerate the effects of climate change (just like the movie!) in his definition of "contrarians." In fact he seems totally reasonable and not at all like the free-speech supressing corruptor of youths you made him out to be.
Finally, you are either being purposefully obtuse when it comes to the film presentation, or you don't understand what the author is saying. He plainly discusses using the film as a way for the students in his class to review scientifically the many gross inaccuracies in the film. You "doubt they would come away from" the movie being able to sort out inaccuracies. Whyever not? Isn't that the point, to use the reasoning and science they have learned in class to deconstruct an inaccurate movie in a class discussion? Sounds like fun and engaging learning experience to me. Even better, it's focused on debunking those catastrophic doomsayers you claim he mocked.
P.S. "Psychological terror movie," really? This guy is a secondary education teacher. He's not showing the movie to 5 year olds, he's showing a PG-13 adventure movie to high school students. "Abusive" seems a bit of a stretch to me.
@nnoxks @MichelleStirling I respectfully disagree. It's not so much that he seems like a free-speech suppressing corrupter of youths. It's the suppressing free speech corrupter of science that I worry about. As evidenced by videos of a classroom of skeptical kids whose heads are blown apart.
@geraldwilhite @nnoxks I believe you are referring to the infamous "10:10 group" that had various groups of people being asked what they were doing to stop climate change...and the non-respondents were blown up, as if by suicide bombers. My main point, which perhaps was not clear, but which I think is clear in my responsive comments to nnoxks is that it should all be about SCIENCE - and even when there are questions about particularly science theories, as Feynman advises, to say "this theory is held by these types of scientists, however, some questions about its validity are...." Thank you for clarifying the essence of the problem with Mr. Bissell's approach. He has apparently designed science curriculum and written science textbooks - I'd like to review those...
@nnoxks Ah - one more point regarding the 'both' - you are correct that there are quite a few different theories and I did not edit to correct that word 'both' In my personal view (based on historical reading and scientific correlation of sunspots etc to events), due to the immense cosmic power of the sun, the sun is the main driver (I am not a scientist); but I am also interested in the impact of the moving magnetic pole on climate. As a layman, I found the pattern of heavy snows versus our milder winter here last year interesting - the magnetic pole used to be in our north, now it has scuttled over to Siberia somewhere and is moving rather quickly. This is all anecdotal speculation of course, but it is another theory bounced around. The interplay of factors is very broad and none can be assessed or dismissed out of hand, in my view - yet the CAGW theory does that, dismissing all else out of hand - and by the way CAGW does not incorporate ANY natural factors like earthquakes, volcanoes, ice melt, sun (or OTHER cosmic forces - yes, there is a galactic wave too)
@nnoxks @MichelleStirling Thank you for your willingness to continue this debate. I will break up the answers into blocks to be a bit easier to read, I hope.
Regarding whether I am obtuse or not, the movie in question certainly got me freaking out because it deals with a primal fear - abandonment and separation in a catastrophic context. It's NOT science. So it is not relevant. At all.
Regarding the so-called 'consensus' I refer you to the following about the 97%...(please see the link at the end for the full paper)
WHAT OF CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I refer you to the facts about the so-called ‘97% consensus’ of climate scientists–
"We find that they originally contacted 10,257 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded, less than a 31% response rate. “Impending Planetary Doom” was obviously not uppermost in the minds of over two thirds of their target population. Of that number, only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduce that by half by only counting those who they classed as “specialists”.
“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_qconsensusq_opiate_the_97_solution.html
@nnoxks Hi nnoxks - to be sure I wasn't skewing things, I just read "Stop Global Warming" by Laurie David and the only scientist mentioned there is Hansen, whose predictions have been so far off they shouldn't be publishing any comments from him anymore. The entire book is all hype and no citations. She is the one responsible for global warming. Laurie David. How to be an activist in one easy lesson. Is this what we should be teaching in science classes?
@nnoxks That's nice of you - I understand. Looking forward to continuing the chat - here's the last of my response to your earlier long post - hope you can figure out the pieces. I too must dash.
ARE TEACHERS ‘TRUSTED MESSENGERS’ IF THEY ARE NOT OPEN TO DEBATING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ABOUT CLIMATE?
Mr. Bissell refers to 2004 research by Moser & Dilling that the ‘solution to the climate change communication problem is to use highly credible and legitimate ‘trusted messengers’ (p 41). Mr. Bissell then states “I would argue that science educators can and should work to become one of these trusted messengers of climate change information.”
How can teacher be ‘trusted’ if teachers are using agenda-driven information and wanting to: ‘help create a future generation of people with re-established public trust and certainty in the scientific information about climate change.”
Science is about questioning, not certainty.
TEACHERS AS CREDIBLE MESSENGERS vis a vis MR. BISSELL’S RECOMMENDED MATERIAL
Just to review some of Mr. Bissell’s recommended sites, a closing recommendation of his in the article is: “Stop Global Warming: The Solution is You” by Laurie David.
This reference again puts the onus for a ‘solution’ on young people – a burden too great to bear.
David was producer of the Oscar-winning “An Inconvenient Truth” – the springboard for most of the global warming hysteria of today (it has been withdrawn from British schools for its inaccuracies).
She states: “Never let knowing next to nothing stop you.”
http://www.treehugger.com/culture/stop-global-warming-ithe-solution-is-youi-by-laurie-david.html
Though Mr. Bissell is addressing science teachers, he is referring them to information produced by agenda-driven non-scientists. Why?
He also refers teachers to:
http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/teachersguide/teachersguide.htm#topten
for an out-dated and inaccurate (but very alarming) graph, then on to the unscientific opening statement on this page.:“The earth’s climate is changing; and people’s activities are the main cause..” (this is not true and not proven scientifically anywhere)
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/index.html
The site goes on to:
“The Signs” stating incorrectly that: “The average temperature of the Earth is rising”
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/index.html
In fact, satellite records show a cooling of global temperatures in the past 13 years; many land-based temperature units are located in hot spots in urban centers that do not accurately reflect temperatures in many assessments (that frequently leave out or replace ocean temps w. land temps).
@MichelleStirling I do apologize for the "obtuse" comment, I was trying to score rhetorical points there. I look forward to answering your post, but a detailed response will have to wait until later this evening. Till then!
Dear nnoxks:
Ms. Stirling-Anosh wrote her original commentary, as well as her answer to you, under her own name.
Could we ask the same of you? It would help our readers to know that you also stand behind your comments.
Troy Media
@nnoxks Thank you sir. Regarding the issue of mockery -(I just put these headlines in for my ref. in my working doc; I'm not cyber shouting)
MOCKING OF EXPERTS - FAULTY SCIENCE PROMOTED ALONG WITH FAULTY SCIENTIFIC METHODS –– at one point Mr. Bissell regurgitates a mocking column on Christopher Monckton – reciting that he is a “clown and grade C skeptic." Christopher Monckton was science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and has written widely on the topic. Mr. Bissell also mocks a science organization founded by APEGA members and earth/meteorological scientists for ‘appearing to be professional and credible’ ...with their claim that the sun is the main driver of climate change. I think they have about 300 years of scientific education and experience between them on the board alone. I don’t think Mr. Bissell has a science degree.
FLAT REFUSAL IS NOT SCIENCE
Mr. Bissell perhaps gets his information from the EPA’s site “Ruled Out”
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/scientists/ruled-out.html
In a section where the science can be ‘debated’ on this site, other possible causes of climate change are flatly ruled out without any scientific consideration:
“The Sun - The facts: Since the 1970s, the sun has been cooling slightly. Over this same time period, the Earth has gotten warmer. Most of the warming has occurred in the lower atmosphere near the Earth's surface.
Could the sun be responsible for today's climate change?
No. If the sun were the cause of climate change, the Earth's temperature would be cooling, not warming! Also, if the sun were responsible for the increased warming, it would occur throughout the entire atmosphere. So, the sun is NOT the cause of today's climate change.”
What kind of ‘science’ is this?
Maybe he should look at NASA.
NASA says the sun DOES affect climate.
“The connection and interactions between the sun and Earth drive the seasons, ocean currents, weather and climate..."
Likewise one should consider the miniscule volume of CO2 in the air against the size and power of the sun. C02 is 0.039 per cent by volume of the air - a trace gas...by contrast the sun...
".About one million Earths could fit inside the sun.”...” 1645 to 1715: Sunspot activity declines to almost zero, possibly causing a Little Ice Age on Earth” http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=OverviewLong
In the “Science” section of the EPA site recommended by Mr. Bissell, volcanoes are also flatly ruled out as affecting our climate today – despite clear evidence from “the year without summer’ that massive volcanic explosions and dust may have lowered global temperatures by some 7 degrees (Laki 1783), Mt. Tambora (1816 – year without summer) and more.
Well, there is a difference between myself and Ms. Stirling-Anosh. She has written an article published by a news organization. I am a commentator on the internet. The standards that should apply to us are arguably different. I do stand behind my comments, however, and if it will add weight to my position (although being someone of no particular importance I cannot imagine why) I will oblige.
Nathan Sherrard
"[T]he Journal states that, even though climate change is about science, questioning should be suppressed and the public should be manipulated to believe that global warming is a certainty."
If the Journal states it, where are the quotation marks? This is a highly disingenuous framing of the issue. Or, to put it another way, a lie. The Journal never stated it. After making this false claim, you try to support it by criticizing the recommendation of showing a film. You state (watch how this works):
"Stan Bissell, the author, even recommends, as part of his in-class climate studies, that other teachers show their classes the PG-13 climate-terror movie The Day After Tomorrow as an exercise in ‘critical thinking.’ . . . Using The Day After Tomorrow to teach critical thinking on climate science is a bit like showing Friday the 13th to med students to critique surgical techniques."
(See how I did that? I say you stated something, and then I quote you. Now watch this). Boy that sounds pretty bad. How could the author possibly justify using the film to teach critical thinking? Let's see what the author actually wrote. Stan Bissell states (watch closely now):
"For example, in my own classroom I have had my students analyze the inaccuracies in the 2004 Hollywood climate change disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow. Because this pseudoscience film contains so many inaccuracies, I found it to be an accessible medium for students to test and hone their critical thinking."
So what's going on here Ms. Stirling-Anosh? Did you fail to actually read the document you purport to be critiquing, or are you purposefully misinforming us about it? I don't really see any other explanation, although if you have one I would love to hear it.
©
2013, ↑ A Troy Media Affiliates website 
Facebook
Reddit
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Sign me up to your newsletters!